If there was ever a time when there was nothing, then there would be nothing still, because nothing has no potential to become something. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And yet there is something, so we know there has never been a time when nothing existed. Something must have always existed, but what is that something?
We know the universe exists, so maybe it is what has always existed. But there are several reasons to think the universe is not eternal. One such example is the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago. And yet we have not reached a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. It began to exist a finite time ago.
If the universe has not always existed, what has? Given the maxim that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing is self-caused, that which has always existed must be the causal explanation for the universe coming into being a finite time ago. What could have done so? Given that whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material, we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind.
Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe, and thus are unlikely to be that which has always existed. That leaves us with an unembodied mind as the eternal something. This makes sense. Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe. An intelligent agent is best explains why the universe is as it is.
Since an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, intelligent mind is what most mean by “God,” it is best to conclude that God is that which has always existed. He is a necessary being, who contains within Himself the sufficient cause for His own existence, as well as the existence of everything else.
Thinking to Believe 
August 30, 2008 at 12:04 am
“Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things, but it also makes sense of the design and order we see in the universe.”
Yes, and we’re also intimately acquainted with consciousness/intelligence being possibly the most complex thing in the universe. And if you claim that a ‘mind’ was required to create things, including intelligence, then you’re stuck with a contradiction. Your ‘God’ then needs to be created – so the idea of such a ‘God’ simply existing without cause is not only an assumption, but an incoherent claim.
Look up Montague’s article on “Dawkins’ Infinite Regress” to see the futility of wheeling out a super intelligence – you’re stuck with the impossibility of a mind simply existing, useless as some sort of ‘first cause’.
Despite all the evidence against spiritual explanations for anything, people still clutch desperately to the ‘God of the Gaps’ mentality – if we don’t have an explanation for X, then ‘God did it’ which, when you think about it, provides no explanation at all.
“If the universe has not always existed, what has?”
The MATERIAL universe has not existed for infinite time, but if time only started with the Big Bang, then we don’t need to worry about infinite time. The big issue is what triggered the Big Bang, and there is no reason to think this must be ‘outside’ the universe.
“we are limited to two possibilities: abstract objects, or an unembodied mind”
Only two possibilities? Well the possibility of a ‘mind’ has been shown to be incoherent. And what do you exactly mean by ‘abstract objects’? That also seems like an incoherent phrase.
“Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, they cannot be the cause of the universe.”
Well neither can disembodied spirits interact with the physical world, so what’s your point? Sorry, but an ‘unembodied mind as the eternal something’ makes no sense.
If we’re looking for a ’cause’, it’s scientific investigation that offers the path to the solution to the mystery of the universe. There are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world – within the domain of quantum physics. Probability/uncertainty seems to be inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality. And this doesn’t violate the laws of physics. If general relativity takes us back to a primeval universe compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects would have been important. And the origin of the universe from the immaterial need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific – i.e., nothing spiritual involved.
No, we don’t know the conditions which brought about the Big Bang, but there is good reason to believe it wasn’t a spiritual entity. Impersonal, immaterial, timeless – some fundamental, condition. To endow this ’cause’ with all the properties normally ascribed to God is an entirely unwarranted assumption. There’s no attempt with the God Hypothesis to find out how the universe started, how the process works. But that’s been the history of the God Hypothesis – possibly the single most unsuccessful hypothesis of all, having never been proven to be the explanation for anything.
AC Grayling had good reason to say:
“Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies.”
LikeLike
September 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm
That’s a long comment, so I’ll have to be both brief and selective.
You’ve been reading too much Dawkins. And unfortunately, Dawkins hasn’t been reading enough philosoophers. His arguments are bogus.
Read Craig’s short response to part of Dawkins’ argument here, where he shows the fallacy in Dawkins’ “God is more complex than the universe” argument: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493.
And there is no infinite regress. God is uncreated by definition. He had no beginning. You might say that is special pleading or ad hoc. Not so. The universe is temporal. Since temporality had a beginning, whatever caused the universe must not be temporal; i.e. eternal. That which is eternal has no beginning, and since only that which has a beginning needs a cause, the cause of the universe needs no cause. So this is not special pleading. It is what follows rationally if one accepts a fininte universe, and refuses to accept the absurd notion that the universe is uncaused or self-caused.
The cosmological argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. Why you would even bring that up in response to a post providing a rational argument for God (rather than one that assigns God as the cause out of ignorance), I don’t know. I can only think it is for rhetorical effect.
If the universe began to exist, and if every effect needs a cause, then by definition the cause of the universe would have to be outside the universe. Your only other option is to say the universe is uncaused, which is rationally defective.
To say disembodied minds cannot interact with the universe is to presuppose materialism/atheism, not to prove it. I will be posting something on this soon, but let me just say for now that we are familiar with the concepts of minds effecting the universe (our own), and our minds are not physical entitites. Whether our minds are embodied or not, the bottom line is that there is a causal relationship between our immaterial minds and the physical world. If that can be true of man, why can’t that be true of immaterial persons?
Science cannot possibly find the cause for the universe, because all of the tools of science come from within the universe. You can’t say some physical law is responsible for the origin of the universe, because those laws did not exist until after the universe came into being. Either something outside the universe brought the universe into being, or the universe is uncaused. The only other option is that it is self-caused, but this is incoherent.
I’m not ascribing properties to the cause of the universe that I also ascribe to God. I’m looking at what kind of thing could have caused the universe. If the universe is the beginning of matter, space, and time, then whatever caused the universe to exist could not have been spatial, temporal, or spatial. That follows rationally. I don’t need to import my background knowledge of some religious faith to realize that.
Jason
LikeLike
April 15, 2015 at 6:52 pm
This is a nice rehashing of what Dr. Craig has said numerous times. It is false for very simple reasons.
You don’t know that only God or abstract numbers can exist outside of our universe; maybe there are other, higher-order entities that are possible beyond space and time; that is, existing in higher dimensions, or something beyond dimensions that we have yet to conceive of?
Like all theists who claim metaphysical knowledge, you assume that the realm outside of our universe is 100% comprehensible without justification. If this were a theory and you had evidence, I would accept your argument, but as a metaphysical matter you don’t have any evidence, so all of your arguments remain as baseless hypotheses, just like string theory, or the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
And particularly with respect to causality, you have taken it as a maxim without justification. While it is valid within our universe because we constantly see evidence confirming our theory of causality (and for practical purposes, we can assume it is true until we come across evidence that counters our assumption), you need evidence or some logical reasoning to assume it is valid “outside” of our universe, a realm that we know nothing about. You can’t just assume things are true without justification. Everywhere we look in space we see the same laws, the same cause and effect. It is reasonable to expect that if we look just a little further, being in the same universe, we will observe similar phenomenon…just like I expect my room to still be there if I turn around.
This is obviously completely different from expecting everything outside of our universe, a realm in which we know nothing about and could quite possibly be incomprehensible to us, to follow everything we’re used to in this universe.
In the simplest case, even if you assume you know all of these things, you still have assumed that the cause is necessarily conscious, which is based on absolutely nothing but your faulty intuition, and as such can not be taken seriously as a truth claim (or even as a claim as to what is *probably* true).
It is not even clear that a mind can exist outside of a body, or outside of space and time, because we have no evidence for that…so why should it even be considered as a possibility? You provide no argument for this, you just assume its possible without justification, which is yet another error.
There are other problems but I’ll just leave it there since I doubt you’ll return to this. At least other readers will be able to see how remarkably flawed this argument is…and all the other ones Dr. Craig espouses.
LikeLike
May 7, 2018 at 6:16 pm
First, You don’t really understand entropy.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/01/14/arxiv-find-what-is-the-entropy-of-the-universe/
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/02/08/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-2/
Second, I’m not sure what the difference is between an abstract object and disembodied mind? Abstract defintion: disassociated from any specific instance an abstract entity. Surely, your god, as an disembodied mind, fits.
Then you do a switch and say this:
‘Not only are we are intimately acquainted with the idea of minds creating things…’
Uhm! I am not familiar with disembodied minds creating anything are you? Embodied minds -yes – disembodied – no. All minds we know of are embodied. They must need a physical scaffolding.
LikeLike
May 7, 2018 at 6:18 pm
Forgot the most important point: That would mean that your disembodied mind (God) is causally impotent.
LikeLike
October 25, 2019 at 3:33 pm
Piotr writes:
I too am critical of the Kalam Argument that Craig espouses, but Jason does not argue that “only God or abstract numbers can exist outside of our universe.”
Jason doesn’t claim this either. A valid critique does not put words into somebody’s mouth.
You do, however, validly critique Jason’s failure to justify the causal principle. True enough, he doesn’t have to do that every time he writes on the topic, but he should always, for the benefit of new readers, embed links to arguments he thinks are adequate to that effect.
LikeLike
November 18, 2019 at 9:38 pm
The causal principle is not a physical principle, but a metaphysical principle, wholly independent of both matter and time. And it is a metaphysical intuition. As such, it requires no defense, any more than the logical laws require a rational defense. It is onus of anyone who would call it into question to tell us why we should question it. And when we’re talking about the origin of the universe, we are talking about the strongest form of the causal principle: something (material) coming from nothing (material). What reason do we have to doubt that it is metaphysically impossible for something to come from nothing?
LikeLike
November 19, 2019 at 11:06 am
Jason writes:
What is “causal”? What do you mean by cause? What is change in relation to cause? What about metaphysical arguments against change?
These are very old questions for which there are logical arguments. Aristotle addressed them, and his work was refined by Aquinas. The fact that it is a “metaphysical principle” does not mean that there are no arguments in its favor, and that’s what I mean by justifying the causal principle. Contra some ancient Greek philosophers and some modern thinkers, change occurs (and there are lot of arguments here too). What changes has the potential to change as a necessary principle of its being, else it could not change. No potential can actualize itself; it must be actualized by something that exists (something that actually exists or is in act), etc.
There is no good reason to doubt it, but there are reasons we believe it. Why can’t something come from nothing? We would say because…. We don’t say, “Well, it sounds good to us. Prove us wrong.” We would say that for something to come from nothing, the “nothing” must at least have the potential that something could come from it (else, again, it could not change from nothing to something), but in that case it would not be a nothing but a something. Nothingness has no potential else we equivocate the term. Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.
Whether one is advancing the Kalam or any of the Thomist arguments, we are relying on a causal chain. It is therefore incumbent on us to justify our conclusion that the causal chain we see in the physical realm can and must apply to the metaphysical realm which necessarily directs us to God. It is my contention that the Kalam is insufficient to get its proponent to God, hence the causal analysis its proponent relies upon does not justify h/er conclusion. That’s why one must show from the causal principle why God is the necessary origin of the causal chain. Without that justification, the argument will fail.
LikeLike